No, but he's one of the world's most reknown forensic scientists who has worked many many homicides in his time. I'm not saying OJ is innocent, just saying that his book gave an explanation as to why someone might have had reasonable doubt when exposed to the forensic evidence that many of us were not exposed to.

DNA (in this case blood) is a good thing to have in a case....however when that DNA (blood) has much more EDTA (keeps blood from coagulating) in it than normal, it suggests that the DNA could have been planted...

Also, for almost 20 minutes while Lange was interviewing Kato Kaelin, and Van Atter was interviewing Arnell Simpson Mark Furhmann's whereabouts at OJ's house were unknown.

Add in the blood evidence on the pair of socks showed evidence that it was placed there and pressed as all four sides of the sock had the same pattern...etc.

Dr. Henry Lee wrote a book called Crime Scenes Revisited, and in it he lays the groundwork for why some on the OJ jury had reasonable doubt when you consider the forensic evidence.

I saw a documentary recently about a Serial Killer who has since died who was doing work for Nicole during that time. He initally told a relative that he was going to rip her off and steal what she had around the house then later, he told the same guy O.J. asked him to kill Nicole. He said he only killed Goldman because he showed up and wasn't expecting him. There were 2 shoe prints in the blood and apparently O.J. wasn't there long enough to kill both of them and get back in the Limo. It actually makes sense but because the LA DA's took such a hit when they botched the 1st trial we will never know for sure unless O.J. talks.

This same guy killed women all over the US before he was finally caught in the mid to late 90's.

I think he died from natural causes on death row or was put down. I don't remember.

Well I wouldn't say its a good idea, but if there have to be victims of those who cannot control themselves in society, i would rather it be other people who cannot either rather then those who work hard to fit in. Fact is, it has nothing to do with how poorly prisons are run, but rather the difficulty in humanely handling the violently antisocial. You can lock a prison up so tight that no prisoner has the opportunity to hurt another, but you will immediately run into prisoner right issues and inhumane or unnatural treatment. If you loosen things up to allow prisoners a somewhat humane and natural existence, they hurt each other for the reason they are in prison in the first place. The problem with prisons is they are filled with bad people who do bad things whenever given any opportunity to do so.

Go look up the studies. There's a lot of signs that rape is so prevalent in our prisons because the people running them don't care and sometimes even use it as a tool to control prisoners. You clearly have no idea how unbelievably corrupt our prison system is. You also clearly don't know that the majority of people in our prisons are non-violent criminals, at least before they are subjected to the hell that is prison.

No, but he's one of the world's most reknown forensic scientists who has worked many many homicides in his time. I'm not saying OJ is innocent, just saying that his book gave an explanation as to why someone might have had reasonable doubt when exposed to the forensic evidence that many of us were not exposed to.

DNA (in this case blood) is a good thing to have in a case....however when that DNA (blood) has much more EDTA (keeps blood from coagulating) in it than normal, it suggests that the DNA could have been planted...

Also, for almost 20 minutes while Lange was interviewing Kato Kaelin, and Van Atter was interviewing Arnell Simpson Mark Furhmann's whereabouts at OJ's house were unknown.

Add in the blood evidence on the pair of socks showed evidence that it was placed there and pressed as all four sides of the sock had the same pattern...etc.

Read the book and you'll see the rest......

Never read this book, but my theory was that (a) OJ probably did it; (b) Furhman or one of the officers were frustrated in their initial attempts to contact OJ because, unlike most suspects, he had a security fence around his home and they couldn't get onto his property to the yard or front door without more evidence to establish probable cause (at the time.) So that's where the evidence planting started.

Never read this book, but my theory was that (a) OJ probably did it; (b) Furhman or one of the officers were frustrated in their initial attempts to contact OJ because, unlike most suspects, he had a security fence around his home and they couldn't get onto his property to the yard or front door without more evidence to establish probable cause (at the time.) So that's where the evidence planting started.

You know he is right, it is still far from over. And he cites a great example O. J. Simpson.

But there is no evidence....it's all speculation remember? Now Jetmeck is completely changing his (moronic) argument to whether or not Hernandez will be convicted of murder and multiple weapons charges, which was not his original point of contention. I merely stated Hernandez broke at least one law (based on leaked evidence) and would be going to jail. Now Hernandez is in jail.

But there is no evidence....it's all speculation remember? Now Jetmeck is completely changing his (moronic) argument to whether or not Hernandez will be convicted of murder and multiple weapons charges, which was not his original point of contention. I merely stated Hernandez broke at least one law (based on leaked evidence) and would be going to jail. Now Hernandez is in jail.

Jetmeck......loses......again.....

If I recall correctly, Jetmeck's initial comment was against a post that said "if he didn't commit the murder, we know that he knows who did."

Dr. Henry Lee wrote a book called Crime Scenes Revisited, and in it he lays the groundwork for why some on the OJ jury had reasonable doubt when you consider the forensic evidence.

Naw that was a case of jury nullification. The blacks let him go because Fuhrman used the N word and they found him unlikeable and unbelievable. So much blood evidence was ignored its hard to say they didn't have the evidenced to not have reasonable doubt. That was just black people deciding OJ deserved to get off because of all the wrongs black people had faced.